On 07/09/2012 12:14 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 11:36:11AM +0800, Sha Zhengju wrote:
On 07/08/2012 10:53 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
@@ -2245,7 +2252,10 @@ int test_set_page_writeback(struct page *page)
{
struct address_space *mapping = page_mapping(page);
int ret;
+ bool locked;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ mem_cgroup_begin_update_page_stat(page,&locked,&flags);
if (mapping) {
struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -2272,6 +2282,8 @@ int test_set_page_writeback(struct page *page)
}
if (!ret)
account_page_writeback(page);
+
+ mem_cgroup_end_update_page_stat(page,&locked,&flags);
return ret;
}
Where is the MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_WRITEBACK increased?
It's in account_page_writeback().
void account_page_writeback(struct page *page)
{
+ mem_cgroup_inc_page_stat(page, MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_WRITEBACK);
inc_zone_page_state(page, NR_WRITEBACK);
}
I didn't find that chunk, perhaps it's lost due to rebase..
Ah? a bit weird... you can refer to the link
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cgroups/3134
which is an integral one. Thanks!
There isn't a unified interface to dec/inc writeback accounting, so
I just follow that.
Maybe we can rework account_page_writeback() to also account
dec in?
The current seperate inc/dec paths are fine. It sounds like
over-engineering if going any further.
I'm a bit worried about some 3rd party kernel module to call
account_page_writeback() without mem_cgroup_begin/end_update_page_stat().
Will that lead to serious locking issues, or merely inaccurate
accounting?
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
